Big Business Has A Friend-- Congress

Monday we looked at Jason Farago's definitive Cory Booker analysis in the Guardian. One conclusion that struck me was about his lackey-like relationship with Big Business in general and Wall Street in particular.

Booker has the unwavering support of the big bad industry just across the river from Newark. Since his days as a city councilor, he has hoovered up cash from the financial services sector-- but unlike many other tri-state Democrats who seduce the Street in a marriage of a convenience, Booker legitimately thinks that big money knows best and the public sector should do its bidding. When, in May 2012, Booker confessed that he found it "nauseating" for the Obama campaign to impugn Mitt Romney's career in private equity, Democrats were shocked. They shouldn't have been.

Booker's whole career has been a testament to a poisonous financial-corporatist consensus, which dresses up the interests of big money in post-ideological garb. (That helped him win the support this weekend of the most powerful man in New Jersey: George Norcross III, the feared political boss and owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who said he liked Booker because he was "a Democrat that's fiscally conservative yet socially progressive.")

Because I used to be a corporate CEO, I still get corporate CEO magazines and communications. One came this week that I actually opened instead of deleting. It was celebrating the easy access corporate CEOs and their agents have to Members of Congress. They cited a study based on a survey by George Washington University that included 328 congressional staffers from both sides of the aisle. No telling how many of their bosses are as subservient to Big Business as Cory Booker, but the study found that "65 percent of Hill staffers have a positive opinion of corporations-- calling them very or somewhat trustworthy. Additionally, the poll finds that 71 percent of Hill staffers found meetings with CEOs and top executives to be helpful when learning more about the issues that affect business." Just under half the Capitol Hill staffers surveyed say the same positive predisposition towards organized labor. 64% of Hill staffers said that meeting with corporate lobbyists was a helpful activity in formulating policy, while only 45% reported that meeting with labor lobbyists was useful.

This is great news for the business community since many corporations and associations host congressional fly-ins for their employees and membership base. A face-to-face meeting with a legislator helps you connect with your legislator and his or her staff on a personal level and can be important in building relationships for you and your organization. As proven by the study, elected officials enjoy meeting with their constituents, but many people compete for their time. When meeting with your elected official or staffer, be sure to remember the following to ensure an effective meeting:

Be Flexible
When scheduling an appointment, provide as much advance notice as possible and try to be flexible about dates and times. If you have to schedule a meeting on your own, keep in mind that your legislator will be able to spend more time with you if you schedule the meeting at his or her district office when Congress is not in session.

Be Prompt and Professional
Once you have made the appointment, be sure to keep it. It is wise to confirm your appointment a day or two in advance and plan to arrive a few minutes early. Dress professionally and make sure you are prepared to deliver your message persuasively.

Respect the Legislator’s Schedule
Remember that your legislator’s time is limited, and you are there to discuss important issues. Know in advance how long the legislator can speak with you and make certain the meeting does not exceed the allotted time. Be sure to stick to your topic, keep your comments and questions brief, and allow time for your legislator to ask questions and provide you with feedback.

Be Organized for the Meeting
Know your issue and the facts behind it thoroughly before you reach the meeting. If several people will be attending, designate one individual to act as spokesperson for the group and make sure you are all agreed on the message you are there to deliver. When you arrive at the meeting, introduce all of the attendees and allow the spokesperson to explain why you have requested the meeting. Be as specific as possible to help your legislator better understand the big picture.

Clearly State Your Position and Seek Feedback
Explain specific reasons you support or oppose the issue, including the impact of the issue on your business, your community, colleagues and industry. Stick to the issue at hand; bringing up other topics will lessen the force of your message. Ask your legislator’s position on the issue, but don’t try to force him or her to commit to a position. Request that you be kept updated on the issue and be sure to provide your contact information.

Avoid Arguing
While you are entitled to disagree with your elected officials, remember that you are not just there to win: You are there to build a positive relationship. Becoming argumentative will not help. Even if you are unable to persuade your legislator to your point of view, it is always best to leave on friendly terms so that you will be welcome another time.

Provide Leave-Behind Information
Whenever possible, leave appropriate documentation that supports your position with the legislator. Such leave-behind information will help the legislator remember your views and allow him or her to refer back to them after the meeting is over.

Follow Up with a Personal Letter
Be sure to send a thank-you letter after the meeting, regardless of whether you were able to reach an agreement. A thank you letter demonstrates that you appreciate the value of your elected official’s time and allows you to reiterate your position and underscore your concerns.

I bet it didn't take many personal follow up letters from Steve Jobs and Tim Cook of Apple to members of Congress to curry favor with the government, not if you read a new report from the Associated Press about domestic spying the same way I do:

Apple says it received between 4,000 and 5,000 requests from U.S. law enforcement for customer data for the six months ended in May.

The company, like some other businesses, had asked the U.S government to be able to share how many requests it received related to national security and how it handled them. Those requests were made as part of Prism, the recently revealed highly classified National Security Agency program that seizes records from Internet companies.

Prism appears to do what its name suggests. Like a triangular piece of glass, Prism takes large beams of data and helps the government find discrete, manageable strands of information.

Prism was revealed this month by the Washington Post and Guardian newspapers, and has touched off the latest round in a decade-long debate over what limits to impose on government eavesdropping, which the Obama administration says is essential to keep the nation safe.

Apple Inc. said that between 9,000 and 10,000 accounts or devices were specified in data requests between Dec. 1, 2012, and May 31 from federal, state and local authorities and included both criminal investigations and national security matters.

...Facebook Inc. has said that it received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for data from all government agencies in the second half of last year. The social media company said fewer than 19,000 users were targeted.

I had dinner with an old friend over the weekend who designed-- and then ran-- a computer system for a sensitive division of one of Wall Street's biggest banks. He told me the feds asked them for access to between 30,000 and 50,000 individual accounts annually and claimed it was covered by "money laundering" statutes, although it was clear to the bank that very little of it involved a search for money launderers. The news didn't come as a surprise to me, just as the revelations in the press about Prism and other NSA domestic spying didn't come as a surprise to me. I have, after all, always taken President Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the power of the Military Industrial Complex to heart. He was certainly in a better position to understand it than any president who came after him.

Read More

Buck McKeon's Family Opens A Defense Industry Lobbying Firm To Enrich Itself At Taxpayers' Expense

The other day it was revealed that three stooges named Steve McKeon, Daniel McKeon & Joe McKeon opened up a new shoppe-- a war industries lobbying shop. Joe is Buck's failed businessman brother who's gone bankrupt at everything he's tried. Steve and Daniel are Buck's nephews. Buck himself was appointed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee by Boehner and, despite, a serious national security breach connected to McKeon's overt corruption, has refused to make him give up the chair, despite demands from other Republican committee members. And, keep in the back of your mind that Buck McKeon has taken in more in legalistic bribes from war industries than anyone else in Congress-- more than Boehner, more than Cantor, more than any senator. He started the Congressional Drone Caucus-- officially, the Unmanned Vehicle Caucus-- and he got the legislation carefully crafted by the drone manufacturers through Congress. Buck insists he'll be scrupulous in making sure there are no conflicts of interest with the family firm and the taxpayers money, although his history would indicate that the entire enterprise was planned out as one giant conflict of interest.

Roll Call, in their Moneyline column-- "Inside the flow of money in politics"-- points out the obvious: "More than likely the McKeon name will help business." For his whole shady career, McKeon gas taken in an astronomical $1,396,400 in legalistic bribes from arms manufacturers and related war-oriented firms. In way of comparison, McCain has only gotten $1,230,052 from these same galoots. Lindsey Graham, another demented war-monger has only taken in $354,966 and John Boehner and Eric Cantor only got, respectively $385,100 and $430,750. In the 2012 cycle, McKeon topped everyone else again-- both Houses of Congress. Last year alone, he took in more than the second and third biggest recipients combined:

The drone manufacturers have been particularly generous to him. His family firm, Golden Oak Consulting of Santa Clarita started last May as bribes from the arms manufacturers were gushing into McKeon coffers to the maximum extent allowed by the very lax laws. He needed to figure out a way to get even more-- and that's where ne're-do-well brother Joe and his kids came in. Their first arms manufacturing client was  Threat Deterrence of Alexandria, Va., a computer software firm dealing with defending against various kinds of threats.

The company website states, “we have worked inside some of the most capable threat mitigation agencies in the world. These agencies include the United States Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, national Security Agency, US Joint Special Operations Command, US Congress and many other threat support organizations.”

Golden Oak Consulting also registered on May 21 to lobby for GoPro of San Mateo, Calif., which makes waterproof and shockproof cameras. In 2011 the company launched a military helmet mount for its camera. A press release stated “We developed our NVG Mount to make it simple for them to attach their GoPro cameras to the helmets they’re already using every day. The men and women serving in the military and civil services are out there every day, working in some of the most extreme conditions on earth. We are hopeful that our products can help them with their work…”

The managing partners of Golden Oak Consulting are Steve McKeon, Daniel McKeon and Joe McKeon. These are the first two federal lobbying clients for the firm.

Golden Oak Consulting is also working with another company, DuraSeal Coatings, a nanotechnology company, in Kansas City, Mo. A Golden Oak Consulting press release stated, “Golden Oak is looking forward to enhancing DuraSeal Coating’s current value position and is committed to building DuraSeal Coating’s position in the new Government market.” DuraSeal Coatings wants to sell products to the Department of Defense. In September of 2012, another firm, J. M. Burkman & Associates registered to lobby on behalf of DuraSeal Coatings in the Defense area, and specifically the “sale of coatings products to DOD.”

Folks in the Santa Clarita area are used to seeing scams perpetrated on innocent families by vicious predators who all happen to be named McKeon. This is a news account of one of the "scrupulous" McCain clans forays into what anyone would call "bad behavior," especially since it always seems to involve Mormons taking advantage of non-Mormons.

The largest creditor of a defunct retail clothing chain co-owned by U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon has accused the company-- and most of its owners-- of fraud and misrepresentation.

The accusations are part of a civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Wednesday by Coast Business Credit, a division of Southern Pacific Bank. Coast claims McKeon's four brothers, all part-owners of Howard and Phil's Western Wear, owe it about $4 million.

Under a preliminary sale agreement, expected to be finalized today, Coast will receive roughly $550,000 for the remaining assets of the broken company. But that is just a fraction of the money Coast says it is owed, and in its suit it seeks to foreclose on homes owned by the four brothers to cover part of the shortfall.

In its suit, Coast says Howard and Phil's "deliberately overstated the value and/or amount of the finished goods inventory... with the intent to deceive Coast" into giving it large cash advances.

The suit says Joseph B. McKeon, John D. McKeon, Monte B. McKeon and Timothy McKeon "participated and conspired in the submission of false reports to Coast."

Yeah... real scrupulous. It's hard to understand why even a crook like Boehner won't cut McKeon lose as the chairman of such an important and sensitive committee.

Read More

Lobbyists Trying To Decide Who To Make Chair Of House Armed Services Committee When McKeon Retires Or Is Indicted

Wednesday, Michelle Ringuette from Amnesty International pointed to Buck McKeon's shameful hypocrisy over the den of torture that Guantánamo has become. But McKeon is unlikely to be in Congress much longer and the Military Industrial Complex top lobbyists are already working out who they want Boehner to make the next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

McKeon, struggling with a still under wraps national security scandal stemming from his gambling addiction and immense sums he owes organized crime operative (and China puppet) Sheldon Adelson, is under immense pressure to retire. He's already told his closest associates and staffers that he won't run for reelection in 2014 and will seek a lobbying job instead. One of the most bribed congressman by the Military Industrial Complex in the history of the country ($1,396,400)-- and the father of the domestic spying drone industry-- should have no problem finding a job on K Street.

And the Military Industrial Complex will have no trouble in finding another patsy to run the House Armed Services Committee for them whether it's Boehner or Hoyer-- K Street's two top employees in Congress-- calling the shots. Their top candidates, along with the legalistic bribes they have accepted from arms makers, are:

• Mac Thornberry (R-TX)- $546,550
• Randy Forbes (R-VA)- $524,450
• Mike Turner (R-OH)- $446,720
• Adam Smith (D-WA)- $472,700

Politico coverage is-- as expected-- hackish and plain wrong. Even the DCCC, which ignored McKeon's obvious vulnerabilities in 2012 has moved to recruit Lee Rogers to run again in 2014 after seeing polling that shows McKeon would probably lose next year. Last year his 56-44% victory over Rogers was the closest call of his career... but budding pundits Juana Summers and Austin Wright have decided he "looks like a shoo-in." That's the problem with a shockingly shallow and lazy Beltway-based punditocracy.

“Congressman McKeon represents what’s wrong with Washington-- from out-of-touch sequester policies that hurt the local military to ethical questions that raise real concerns,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Even if McKeon decides to run, Ferguson said, Democrats would make it a tougher fight this time around.

“There are enough Democratic voters in this district, so Congressman McKeon should certainly be worried that this Republican congressional agenda makes him vulnerable and his best bet might be to get out while he can.”

McKeon took the helm of the committee in 2011, replacing Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton. McKeon had served as the committee’s ranking member from 2009, when President Barack Obama picked John McHugh, a New York Republican, to become secretary of the Army.

The Flash Report, an influential California political blog, reported last month that McKeon had been “talking with prominent political leaders in his district and informing them that he may be retiring at the end of his current term.” The site said it was “only a matter of time before McKeon makes his announcement formally.”

McKeon’s staffers have told industry leaders a decision could come before the end of this year.

But whether McKeon runs again or not, because of committee term limits, the Armed Services Committee could get a new chairman next Congress, provided Republicans hold the House and McKeon doesn’t receive a waiver to retain his seat.

Industry sources [which industry sources, the politics industry or the weapons-manufacturing industry?] pointed to Texas Republican Mac Thornberry as the committee’s “heir apparent,” and said he has been actively working to position himself to succeed McKeon... He has also been working to prove his fundraising mettle, hoping to show Republican congressional leaders that he has what it takes to be a successful committee chairman, according to a GOP defense industry source.

While it’s still early in the 2014 cycle, Thornberry has already raised more than $37,000 for the National Republican Congressional Committee. During the 2012 cycle, he raised more than $267,000.

And the list of top donors to his campaign committee reads like a who’s who of premier defense firms. Last cycle, Thornberry received major donations from Northrop Grumman, Textron, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and United Technologies, among others.

“He’s definitely been trying to position himself for that eventuality,” an industry lobbyist said. “If it’s not this cycle, it will certainly be the next one.”

Still, the lobbyist cautioned, “It’s never a lock with this leadership. … They’ve kind of thrown out the seniority system. It really has to do with what your current relationship with the leadership is.”

Thornberry could face GOP challenges from Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes, who chairs the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, or Ohio Rep. Mike Turner, who chairs the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. In conversations with lobbyists and industry sources, their names came up time and again as possibilities for the committee chairmanship.

Both Turner and Forbes have similar ability to attract the defense industry’s top donors. Last cycle, Forbes raked in high-dollar contributions from SAIC, BAE Systems and Raytheon, while Northrop Grumman and SAIC made big donations to Turner.

Neither Turner nor Forbes has contributed to the NRCC so far this cycle, according to Federal Election Commission records. Spokesmen for the two declined comment.

A Republican congressional aide suggested Thornberry isn’t necessarily a lock if McKeon were to retire.

“I think Mr. Turner and Mr. Forbes are really the ones to look toward. Mr. Thornberry didn’t move up. He’s not really someone that people look to as a heavyweight on HASC issues,” the aide said, adding that Forbes and Turner-- both subcommittee chairmen-- are “the ones that people talk about and look to as national security experts.”

When it comes to fundraising, the aide said, “You can probably put a corpse in a wheelchair and they can raise money as a committee chair. Just raising money is a small part when it comes to running a massive and important organization such as a House Armed Services Committee.”

Even so, another industry lobbyist said he didn’t believe Forbes or Turner would mount a serious challenge to Thornberry.

“Mac is the vice chairman and McKeon is making it clear to people that he would like him to succeed him,” the lobbyist said. “In the end, I don’t believe that they will [challenge Thornberry]. I think they’re going to make some noise about it, but they’re not serious contenders.”

“It’s Mac’s turn-- he’s got the seniority,” the lobbyist added. “They’ve skipped over people who had seniority before, but it wouldn’t make sense to skip over someone who’s got the experience and has done all the right things. …They only skip over people who are pains in the ass.”

But McKeon might not be in a position to get what he wants, the GOP aide said.

“I find it interesting that anyone would think that Mr. McKeon, the guy who was responsible for not standing up to leadership on sequestration, would get to name the next chairman,” the aide said. “If McKeon can’t stand up for the prerogatives of the committee as well as speak out on an issue as devastating as sequestration, what ability does he have to help name a name?”

And, of course, no one thinks it in the least bit odd to go to a much of overpaid, sleaze-bag lobbyists, whose primary function is robbing the taxpayers blind, to find out what plans Boehner has for staffing one of Congress' most important committees. But like the man said, "You can probably put a corpse in a wheelchair..." or a drone.

Read More

Is Obama Throwing Seniors Under The Bus So He Can Keep The Military-Industrial Complex Pork Rolling Along?

Millions of Democrats were outraged that Obama-- apparently in cahoots with Boehner and McConnell-- put forward a proposal, Chained CPI, to reduce the cost of living adjustments for seniors and veterans who depend on meager Social Security payments to live. Although over 100 Republicans already voted for this catastrophic cut to Social Security as part of the reactionary Republican Study Group budget, not even one Democrat voted for it. Obama stuck it in his budget anyway.

Plenty of Obama-supporters have wondered how he could possibly betray the most basic and fundamental principles of the Democratic Party so crassly and so callously, even with most of the congressmen in his own party begging him not to. Joshua Green at Businessweek traces it back to one good thing about Sequestration-- reduction of out-of-control spending by the Pentagon, billions of dollars in waste and crony-enrichment.

The Pentagon budget will be cut by $500 billion over the next decade (an additional $100 billion in deficit reduction comes from interest savings). While it may have troubled the White House, many Democrats regarded this as a huge gift-- military cuts were something many of them desired but few would actually argue for. Sequestration delivered more than they could have imagined.

Guess what? The White House still doesn’t like those cuts. And Obama’s new budget, released today, makes this clear. Although the White House doesn’t advertise this fact in the six-page budget overview it put out this morning, the new budget eliminates nearly all of the cuts that sequestration imposes on the Pentagon. Instead of $500 billion in cuts, Obama proposes only $100 billion, and you have to look closely to spot it (“$200 billion in additional discretionary savings, with equal amounts from defense and nondefense programs”).

Along with the well-advertised cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits, this is something that should appeal to the GOP. “It’s another one of the peace offerings in Obama’s package to Republicans,” Robert Litan, the director of research for Bloomberg Government and a former official of the Office of Management and Budget, told me. Indeed, when you cut through all the numbers, Obama and House Republicans are only $100 billion apart (the GOP budget restores the full $500 billion). The catch is that, like the other peace offerings, restoring the Pentagon’s budget is contingent on Republicans agreeing to further tax revenue.

Howard Dean, the last effective head of the DNC, responded poorly. This is a time to fight, not to retreat.

Read More